Mike,
Were the three reviews that you did of Ridgemont Reserve from three different bottles? Obviously the first bottle was not re-tasted, but are the second and third review from the same bottle? If so do you think the fact that there was more air in the bottle between tasting gave it an improvement? If so, try opening the bottle for an hour or so before tasting the bourbon.

bourbonv wrote:Mike, Obviously the first bottle was not re-tasted, but are the second and third review from the same bottle?

Mike the first and second review were from the same bottle.........after the passage of months. The third review was a new bottle from a different liquor store. I do believe the first bottle was tainted as it had some off flavors. I tried the second bottle again today and stand by my review. There is nothing 'wrong' with 1792, it just seems to lack sufficient 'body' to me to make it an interesting bourbon.

Wild Turkey Rare Breed for about the same amount of money is a far better bourbon to my palate.

Do not go gentle into that good night,Old age should burn and rage at close of day;Rage, rage against the dying of the light. - Dylan Thomas

Mike,
I won't argue with your Rare Breed statement. It is a fine bourbon. I was just curious about the bottles used in the review. It could be consistancy could be a problem with the brand. Or it could be just a bad bottle.

As I go further along the path of bourbon education, I realize more all the time that people just taste things differently (why I, or anyone else, should be in doubt as to that is a bit of a mystery..........I guess we just plain want our opinions to carry more weight than they usually do).

I have no interest in trying more 1792 to see if I am missing something.........I don't think I am...........it just doesn't crank my tractor!

Barleycorn thinks there is a 'Vast 1792 Conspiracy' because so many people seem to like 1792. Dogs that I have known seem to favor 'conspiracy theories', which, like 1792, always leave me unimpressed.

I do not have great experience with Barton products, in fact, I have only had one other, and it left no great impression. Maybe the Barton profile is just not for me.

Do not go gentle into that good night,Old age should burn and rage at close of day;Rage, rage against the dying of the light. - Dylan Thomas

Mike,
You are not the only one to say they don't care for the Barton flavor profile. I have heard it from others, including some who are members here, that they don't care for Barton products. They are different, I will give Barton that much.

I pride myself (perhaps falsely) on having catholic tastes. I like wheaters (Van Winkle products, all...........and many others) and high ryes (Four Roses Single Barrel, Old Grand Dad, Wild Turkey............and many others), but it shouldn't be a surprise, given the variety of bourbons available today (leaving aside the question of the loss of quality vis a vis the old time 'favorites') that some bourbon profiles just fail to connect with some of us.

Maker's Mark has many devotees, but to me, it is mediocre at best, and Beam products are barely making the grade as far as I am concerned. The best Beam products in my opinion are Knob Creek and Booker's and I haven't written home about them...........ever.

Sites like BE give those of us who love bourbon (simply because we like it and like to discuss it) a place to talk about it in depth, irrespective of the one that sells the most or is best known. It is nice to be among bourbon friends!!

Do not go gentle into that good night,Old age should burn and rage at close of day;Rage, rage against the dying of the light. - Dylan Thomas